Efficient cooperation in eusocial insect colonies requires effective communication, and there is abundant evidence of non-volatile chemicals playing a role in regulating reproduction within colonies. In contrast, there have been fewer studies investigating the role of volatile chemicals. This study investigated the potential role of volatile chemicals in regulating queen reproduction either by directly inhibiting queen reproduction or by honestly signalling queen fecundity to workers. We tested this using multiple queen colonies of the ant (Leptothorax acervorum) from a functionally monogynous population where one queen monopolizes all reproduction. Nine colonies, each with an established laying queen, were split to produce two colony fragments—one containing the reproducing queen (group 1) and one containing only previously non-reproducing queens (group 2). Each group was separated by a fine wire mesh preventing physical contact, but allowing volatile chemical contact. In each group 2 fragment, we found that a single formerly non-reproductive queen commenced reproduction and that the rate of egg laying and maximum number of eggs recorded did not significantly differ between groups 1 and 2, results that do not support volatile chemicals as playing a role in regulating queen reproduction. Instead, our findings suggest that physical contact is necessary to maintain functional monogyny.
Communication Conflict Cooperation Functional monogyny Leptothorax acervorumSignalling Reproductive skew Worker
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
DJC would like to thank Mike Orchard for help throughout this study; special thanks to D.W. and J. Coston for providing funding for DJC’s MSc. All authors would like to thank three referees for their helpful comments. RJG and RLH would like to thank NERC, Royal Society, and the University of Hull for funding.
Bourke AFG (1991) Queen behaviour, reproduction and egg cannibalism in multiple-queen colonies of the ant Leptothorax acervorum. Anim Behav 42:295–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourke AFG (1993) Lack of experimental evidence for pheromonal inhibition of reproduction among queens in the ant Leptothorax acervorum. Anim Behav 45:501–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourke AFG (1995) Further evidence of lack of pheromonal inhibition among queens of the ant Leptothorax acervorum. Ethology 101:46–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourke AFG, Franks NR (1995) Social evolution in ants. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
d’Ettorre P, Moore AJ (2008) Chemical communication and the coordination of social interactions in insects. In: d’Ettorre P, Hughes DP (eds) Sociobiology of communication: an interdisciplinary perspective. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Felke M, Buschinger A (1999) Social organisation, reproductive behavior and ecology of Leptothorax acervorum (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) from the Sierra de Albarracin in central Spain. Insect Soc 46:84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher DJ, Ross KG (1985) Regulation of reproduction in eusocial Hymenoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 30:319–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill RJ, Hammond RL (2011a) Workers determine queen inheritance of reproduction in a functionally monogynous ant population. Anim Behav. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.04.006
Keller L, Reeve HK (1999) Dynamics of conflicts within insect societies. In: Keller L (ed) Levels of selection in evolution (Monographs in Behavior and Ecology). Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 153–175Google Scholar
Monnin T (2006) Chemical recognition of reproductive status in social insects. Ann Zool Fenn 43(5–6):515–530Google Scholar
Nehring V, Evison SEF, Santorelli LA, d’Ettorre P, Hughes WOH (2011) Kin-informative recognition cues in ants. Proc R Soc Lond B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.2295
Oster G, Eshel I, Cohen D (1977) Worker–queen conflict and evolution of social insects. Theor Popul Biol 12(1):49–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratnieks FLW, Foster KR, Wenseleers T (2006) Conflict resolution in insect societies. Annu Rev Entomol 51:581–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumana A, Deshpande SA, Bhadra A, Gadagkar R (2008) Workers of the primitively eusocial wasp Ropalidia marginata do not perceive their queen across a wire mesh partition. J Ethol 26(2):207–212. doi:10.1007/s10164-007-0049-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vander Meer RK, Alonso LE (2002) Queen primer pheromone affects conspecific fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) aggression. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51(2):122–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamauchi K, Ishida Y, Hashim R, Heinze J (2007) Queen–queen competition and reproductive skew in a Cardiocondyla ant. Insect Soc 54(3):268–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar